BHIMRAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, there is challenge to the judgment and order of conviction dtd. 6/1/2004 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Sessions Trial (S.T.) No. 57 of 2003, convicting appellant husband for offence punishable under sec. 498A of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

(2.) Deceased Dnyaneshwari was married to appellant and dowry amount of Rs.45,000.00, ornaments, utensils, new clothes were given to the groom appellant. That, everything was smooth for a period of two months. According to brother informant, accused persons entertained a wrong belief that, Dnyaneshwari had received Rs.1,00,000.00 after obtaining divorce from first husband. Rs.50,000.00 were spent and remaining Rs.50,000.00 were kept in the bank. For demand of said amount of Rs.50,000.00, accused persons started harassing Dnyaneshwari. She narrated about it, when she visited on festival. Subsequently, there was harassment on account of demand of cot, cupboard, cooler, colour T.V. On 27/12/2002, message was received that Dnyaneshwari consumed insecticide and she succumbed to the same. Therefore, PW2 Anant lodged report at Exh.33, which was made the basis of registration of crime, which was investigated by PW6 A.P.I. Bindusar Shinde, who after gathering evidence, charge-sheeted husband and in-laws for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 498A and 302 of IPC. At trial, prosecution adduced evidence of in all six witnesses and also relied on documentary evidence.

(3.) Questioning the legality and maintainability of the judgment, learned counsel for appellant pointed out that, prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charge of sec. 498A of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. According to him, there are vague, general and bald allegations by merely alleging harassment without specifying or elaborating nature or instances of such harassment. He pointed out that, apart from delayed FIR, testimonies of witnesses are found to be full of material omissions, which goes to the very root of the prosecution case itself. In support of such contention, learned counsel took this court through the cross examinations faced by prosecution witnesses, more particularly, brother and brother-in-law of informant. He would submit that, only two such family members of Dnyaneshwari were examined. According to him, independent witnesses, like PW5 Manik, immediate neighbour has also not supported the prosecution, and therefore, according to learned counsel, prosecution had no convincing or legally accepted evidence in support of any of the charge and even evidence was lacking essential ingredients for attracting charge of sec. 498A of IPC. In support of above contention, learned counsel seeks reliance on ruling of this court in the case of Sharad Kondiba Walke v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 All.M.R. (Cri.) 899; Ravindra Pyarelal Bidlan and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, 1993 CRI. L.J. 3019.